The Future is in Our Hands
Blog
Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

In 4 years we have another election in the U.S., many elections in Europe and in other countries in the world, however, cancer will still be there if scientific issues are not addressed FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving lives and taxpayer money.

See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5WURTdnljSGxrS1U/view?usp=sharing

For your information, facts are provided on how this breakthrough invention that can benefit taxpayers, cancer patients and all of humanity by saving millions of lives and prevent your money from being wasted, has been suppressed and continues to be suppressed. For example, the 3D-CBS invention beneficial to humanity described in the 2505 abstract/summary was suppressed with the following statements «Insufficient information for the reader» and asked the question «What kind of system is the “ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS”?  I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information» (see the full text of the rejection on the first and last page at this link).

 

Both statements made by three anonymous reviewers and co-signed by Dimitri Visvikis, Chairman of the 2016 IEEE-MIC conference and by Suleman Surti, Deputy Chairman are non-scientific and not true. In addition, Surti had a conflict of interest because he is co-author of the Explorer project in competition with the 3D-CBS. His question «What kind of system is the “ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS”?» contradicts his paper and slides presentation by the title: «An Ultra-Sensitive Total Body PET Scanner for Biomedical Research» where he explains what an Ultra-Sensitive PET is, therefore he knows what it is, and his claim that he did not know about the 3D-CBS is false because he cited Crosetto’s 2003 article in his slide 5 presented at the 2013 IEEE-MIC Conference. Clearly, the statement «Insufficient information for the reader» is also false because the last page of the 2505 abstract/summary, (as well as this document in Figure 3) provides the schematics of the hardware implementation of the project with dimensions and drawings in scale, and a link to a 271-page document describing the details of each component of the 3D-CBS system which has been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

 

When Crosetto attempted to find out who was responsible for non-scientific and untrue statements suppressing innovations, no one would take responsibility. IEEE and Conference’s management, the General Chairman, Maxim Titov, IEEE current President, John Verboncoeur, and IEEE President-elect, Stefan Ritt, holding positions higher than Surti and Visvikis could not correct Surti and Visvikis’s untruthful and unscientific inconsistencies detrimental to humanity. No one would take the responsibility to reverse IEEE-MIC Program Chair Visvikis rejection statement suppressing innovations, who, together with Surti appointed the three anonymous reviewers. Crosetto asked and Visvikis confirmed that he cannot reverse the statements of his anonymous reviewers even if they would make the unscientific statement that the earth is at the center of the universe. He would have to suppress the innovation of a scientist proving with calculations and scientific evidence that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Other IEEE Program Chairman instead believed Visvikis is responsible for non-scientific, untrue statements made by reviewers appointed by him.

 

IEEE President John Verboncoeur explained to Crosetto that the peer-review system is volatile, stating that there are “anomalies in their decision process” because “These are staffed by volunteers with significant turnover each year. Hence, we should conclude that any anomaly in their decision process should be both topically and temporally localized”. However, historical data shows that this is not topically and temporality localized because these “anomalies” have crushed Crosetto’s inventions and their benefits to humanity for the past two decades. A reform of the peer-review system to maximize the advancement in science and to be fair to everyone, but most importantly taxpayers and maximizing advancement in science, needs to be addressed.

 

Crosetto believes that he would be failing in his duty as a scientist if he did not point out to leaders and to the public the adversities, obstacles and suppression of his inventions and the resulting burden to taxpayers these inactions to address nonscientific inconsistencies which have brought, not only monetarily but in avoidable deaths and suffering to humanity.

 

He therefore distributed at the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference 650 copies of the suppressed inventions with schematics, a link to the 271-pages of details proving feasibility of the 3D-CBS project by 59 quotes from industries, and a comparison with the Explorer project which cannot save many lives, while the 3D-CBS has such capability.

 

Furthermore, at the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Strasbourg he discussed scientific issues with two former General Chairmen of IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, Uwe Bratzler (2008) and Vesna Sossi (2015) and with several senior scientists, including talking to some of the authors of the Explorer project such as Bill Moses, Joel Karp, Simon Cherry (Surti did not want to talk), and he spent 20 minutes presenting his latest invention to the former CERN Director of Research. No one refuted Crosetto’s claims, schematics, approach, and inventions. CERN former Director of Research appreciated Crosetto’s inventions and told him to present it to CMS and Atlas experiments at CERN. When Crosetto informed him that his inventions were suppressed by the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference he was surprised.

 

Crosetto also spent 100 minutes in a face-to-face meeting on Saturday evening, November 5, after the IEEE NPSS AdCom meeting, with IEEE President John Verboncoeur and newly-elected President Stefan Ritt, who offered him the same deal as has been offered several times over the past 15 years to address in the following year the scientific issues of his inventions which were suppressed this year.  Because in one year 7.5 million people will die from cancer and many could be saved with Crosetto’s 3D-CBS invention through an effective early cancer detection which has been confirmed by U.S. NIH SEER to save over 50% of cancer deaths, postponing this live-saving invention for one more year is unacceptable.

 

What we need to do instead is to address all scientific issues discussed during the 100-minute meeting between Crosetto, Verboncoeur and Ritt, and the scientific issues discussed with several other senior scientists at the conference.

 

Crosetto should be allowed to present the scientific, economic and social benefits of his inventions to organizations working in the interest of the public such as the European ENVI Committee in an audition to their members that will be made available to the public who is paying for the research as well as to funding agencies such as the U.S. DOE, NIH, NCI, NSF.

 

CERN former Director of Research’s recommendation that Crosetto should be allowed to present his new 3D-Flow OPRA invention at CERN to CMS and Atlas experiments should be arranged. CMS spokesman Joel Butler and Atlas leader Andrew Lankford now holding high positions of responsibility in this field at CERN recognized in a letter the scientific merit of Crosetto’s invention and organized and defined the charges to the 1993 FERMILAB review panel who reviewed Crosetto’s basic 3D-Flow invention. Because of their position of responsibility in this field, they could help to define the charges for a new review panel evaluating Crosetto’s new 3D-Flow OPRA providing a more powerful tool to experimenters capable of executing complex Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms on each Trigger Tower using information from 3×3, 4×4, 5×5… 9×9 neighboring Trigger Towers. This would be more efficient than rejecting most of the data based on a combination of thresholds and performing these operations only on a Region of Interest (ROI). Rejecting most of the data based on a combination of thresholds is like throwing away a baby with the dirty water because his weight is the same as the dirty water and the system does not have the capability of recognizing the shape of the baby in the dirty water.

 

Among the charges to the review panel, this time Butler and Lankford would be able to verify that the 3D-Flow OPRA can execute programmable Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms on ALL Trigger Tower data at an ultra-high input data rate, at a complexity of the algorithm that none of the current or future Level-1 Triggers for CMS and Atlas can do, and it does it in one VXI (or ATCA) or a few VME crates at a fraction of the cost of the CMS and Atlas Level-1 Triggers.

Any disagreement on an analytical discussion based on calculations, data sheets of technologies and components commercially available and scientific evidence should be resolved by agreeing to build an instrument such as the ER/DSU unit described in pages 149 to 170 of Crosetto’s proposal costing $50,000 for duplicates that will record real data from the LHC apparatus and replay this data to the different Level-1 Triggers built by CMS, Atlas and using the 3D-Flow OPRA. The Level-1 Trigger system that can find more sought after particles will prove to be more efficient.

 

Because of the above advantages of Crosetto’s inventions suppressed during the past decades, including this year’s 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference, Crosetto went on Monday, November 7, 2016, to the European Parliament and was received by the President of the group Socialists & Democrats, Dr. Gianni Pittella, to whom he gave the document distributed in 650 copies to the participants of the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference in Strasbourg the week prior. Dr. Pittella graciously listened for 25 minutes to Crosetto’s vicissitudes of his inventions suppressed during the past decades, mentioning that he planned to visit CERN and to meet Director General Fabiola Gianotti and promised Crosetto that he would request from her a scientific review of his inventions. He then gave instructions to his assistant Dr. Carmine NINO to include in the file of his visit to CERN the documents provided by Crosetto and his request for a scientific review of his inventions to Dr. Fabiola Gianotti.

 

After the meeting with Dr. Pittella, Dr. Carmine NINO, kindly accompanied Crosetto to the office of Honorable Alessia Mosca who submitted on June 4, 2015 an interrogation to the European Parliament on this subject of research and to the office of Dr. Giovanni LA VIA where he also left a copy of the documentation, explained the events from the previous week in Strasbourg, and made arrangements with LA VIA’s assistant Dr. Dario Siggia to submit this preliminary documentation requesting an audition before the members of the ENVI Committee.

 

***********************************

In light of the above facts, because Citigroup offers several promotions of not charging fees and interests, I respectfully ask to Dr. Michael Corbat, CEO of Citigroup and James Forese, President of Citigroup to consider fair the request of not charging fees and interests for the money used for this cause to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge and to reimburse fees and interests already charged. Thank you.

 

In light of the above facts I respectfully request Dr. Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation to provide guidance to fulfill all requirements for the request of a grant of $2,150 or greater in support of this work to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge. Thank you.

 

Responsible people who want a world of REASON/SCIENCEE should be seeking answers to the following questions to help humanity:

 

  1. Why did the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) give $4.2 million of taxpayer money in 2016 to Wesley Smith after he wasted over $50 million building hundreds of crates with 4,000 electronic data processing board of the CMS Level-1 Trigger systems costing over $100 million which did not work and had to be trashed knowing that it can be replaced with one 3D-Flow OPRA crate at 1/1000 the cost with staggering performance improvements?

 

  1. Why did the U.S. National Institutes of Health give $3,314,184 of taxpayer money in 2016 (out of $15.5 million, $3,054,873 delivered in 2015) to the team of the Explorer project made of 491,520 expensive LYSO crystals, 12 crates with 120 data processing boards and 6 racks of computer processing 40 TB data acquired and stored on hard drives every day for a total power consumption of 60 kW, which cannot save many lives because it cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB data per day, knowing that the 3D-CBS device can make a paradigm change in molecular imaging because it has the capability to acquire and process over 40,000 TB data each day, using one 3D-Flow OPRA VME crate for a total power consumption of the entire system of only 4 Kw, at less than 1/10 the cost of the Explorer? Why, knowing that the 3D-CBS could have saved millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection, reduce radiation dose to less than 1/50, reduce healthcare costs and these results can be proven on a sample population, has it not been funded?

 

  1. Why, after informing President Obama that more than one year after having proof that Glen Crawford, Director of Research and Technology at DOE is not doing his job and five months after his 8-line email incriminating himself with statements in violation of DOE rules and contradicting his own statements, does he still hold the same position and continues to waste taxpayer money and be the internal arm of a circle of friends of corrupted scientists? Why, after Crosetto notified the DOE FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) agent by phone about this document published at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1880 proving that Crawford ordered DOE Security to block Crosetto’s messages to all DOE employees, including the Secretary of Energy, FOIA and OHA so he and his group (e.g. Helmut Marsiske) could continue to give millions of dollars to Wesley Smith and others without accountability is illegal and an abuse of power, Crosetto cannot send these facts to DOE?

 

  1. Why, after Informing President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden that Michael Laurer, Director of the Extramural Research at the National Institute of Health, does not want to hear Crosetto’s inventions, does not want to organize a public scientific review of the 3D-CBS because he believes this would not be fair to all scientists, but does not give the same importance to be fair to the public or to serve the President and Vice-President who promise to give the public the greatest benefits for their tax-dollars, no action is taken depriving instead taxpayers from the benefits from innovations that would emerge from a fair scientific competition?  Why, after proving in this document that the $15.5 million given to the Explorer project is a waste of money because the 3D-CBS can acquire and process over 40,000 TB data in one day providing an effective early cancer detection and a much more powerful research tool at less than 1/10 the cost, does Laurer not respond to hear about Crosetto’s invention, organize a scientific review or consider resigning if he is being impeded from doing his job by someone, instead of complying with the ethics of a scientist and do what it is best for taxpayers?

 

  1. Why, 5 days after Crosetto explained the reason of the great damage to the advancement in science and benefit to humanity for the rejection of his papers and providing facts proving reviewers of this year as well as previous years were either incompetent or did not tell the truth because facts and documents refute reviewers claims that they did not know about Crosetto’s work, do leaders of the Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference in Strasbourg which starts on-site registration today, still not respond to let Crosetto know if he can present his inventions for the benefit of humanity at the Conference or if they will consider resigning if they are being impeded from doing their job by someone, instead of complying with the ethics of a scientist and do what it is best for taxpayers?

 

  1. Why, 5 days after Crosetto informed the Presidents and board of Directors of IEEE, the world’s 400,000 member largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, that facts show that the organizers of the 2016 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD Conference in Strasbourg which starts on-site registration today, have rejected three papers regarding innovations proving to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost and provide staggering performance improvement that has  been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries, still do not respond about the logic and compliance with the scientific integrity that would call for IEEE to disassociate itself from the Strasbourg’s conference organizers who are contrary to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity, and remove its endorsement of the conference.

 

  1. Why, a) after Crosetto and two friends drove to Davos, Switzerland, to hand-deliver a letter containing Crosetto’s 271-page proposal and 155-page report of 59 quotes from reputable industries to Vice-President Joe Biden who organized a forum among scientists of the Cancer Moonshot task force, b) after Crosetto sent an additional copy of the proposal to the physical address provided by Ms. Brazile who Crosetto met at an event at the University of Arlington in Texas, and c) after Mr. Charles Conner, a veteran who worked for Lyndon B. Johnson from 1959 to 1964, wrote a personal letter to Vice-President Joe Biden asking him to address the specific items in Crosetto’s letter, clear out bureaucratic hurdles and have Crosetto be part of the Task Force to defeat cancer, did Mr. Conner not receive a reply, the specific items in Crosetto’s letter were not addressed, and Crosetto was not included in the Task Force to defeat cancer?

 

161,808,200 people have died from cancer since Crosetto’s invention was crushed (11,987,200 were Americans), many of them could have been saved with his 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) technology and hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-payer money could have been saved in High Energy Physics experiments, while providing a very powerful tool to discover new subatomic particles and advance science in different fields. This needless loss of lives, waste of taxpayer money, and loss of advancement in science calls for the reform of the peer-review process to be independent from money and politics as expressed by the National Academy of Science.

 

 

 

[See this document at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1891   or at the Google Drive]

 

Respectfully bringing to your attention facts proving that:

 

Innovations saving millions of lives and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are suppressed and its inventor threatened to involve security instead of providing scientific and economic reasons why hundreds of chasses of electronics that do not provide a powerful tool to save lives and to discover new subatomic particles are funded knowing that breakthrough 3D-Flow and 3D-CBS inventions proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries can replace them in one chassis at a fraction of the cost providing a staggering performance improvement.

 

Hundreds of millions of taxpayer and donation dollars are being wasted and millions of lives are being needlessly lost from cancer because innovations are suppressed by a flawed peer-review process and funding agencies are complicit with scientists who do not have scientific integrity and break their professional ethics instead of making them accountable.

 

The value of Crosetto’s inventions have been recognized and endorsed by hundreds of scientists, the concepts have been proven feasible and functional in hardware, providing staggering performance improvements as confirmed in a public scientific review held at FERMILAB in December 1993, where Crosetto answered objections from other scientists. Recently it was  proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to replace hundreds of crates of electronics with one crate at 1/1000 the cost.

 

Excerpt from the full document available at the Google Drive:

 

A.     Review of paper 2505 by Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject papers submitted to the 2016 IEEE-MIC Conference:

“scored all categories as poor, because: The text of this “so-called” abstract might be appropriate for a newspaper. But even for such a purpose there is insufficient information for the reader. For me it is totally unclear – even after having looked at the summary, which is of ultimately bad quality – what kind of system is the “ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS”. I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information.  

Once again, the abstract and supporting data emphasize the difficulties in getting the project funded rather than submitting scientific material (as he’s been told in the past). VERY strong reject!”

 

1.       Response to Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti and their reviewers’ opinions/questions/concerns:

Response to: “what kind of system is the “Ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS

it is the kind of system explained in abstract 2505 with the words: “The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS …capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation …(on spatial and time resolution, energy and sensitivity) it reduces the radiation dose to the patient, reduces costs, and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.”

 

Suleman Surti, IEEE-MIC Deputy Chairman must know what is an ultra-sensitive PET because he wrote an article entitled: “An Ultra-Sensitive Total Body PET Scanner for Biomedical Research” and explained in slides 3 and 4 why it is necessary and what makes a PET “Ultra-Sensitive”, and in slide 5 stated that what they presented is “Not a New Idea! citing my previous article, thus admitting that he and his co-authors copied several of my ideas.

 

Response to: “it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information”.

 

All relevant and necessary information to compare the advantages of the 3D-CBS to current PET and the Explorer is contained in the 300 word abstract and the two-page summary 2505 where there is more information than the 10 slides and articles of the Explorer authored by Surti and others. Surti and his co-authors of the Explorer did not cite my previous work in their articles (except as mentioned in the previous paragraph when in slide 5 when my name and article are cited to explain that their Explorer was not a new idea) and/or have obstructed the presentation, publication and funding of my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) invention which is more efficient and more than ten times less expensive than their Explorer.

 

The figure in the last page of the summary 2505 shows the entire 3D-CBS system; details of each component are described at the link provided on the first line of the abstract. This figure shows:

  • The 3D-CBS system consisting of two crates, one for converting from analog-to-digital the signals received from the detector, the other 3D-Flow OPRA crate for data processing.  The Explorer system is less efficient and more expensive and consists of the Analog-to-Digital electronics shown on the bottom of the block detector on the right of slide 7, plus twelve Detector Crates of slide 8, and four to six racks of computers cited on the UC-Davis website.
  • The 3D-CBS power consumption of the two crates of the figure at the last page of the summary is 3 to 4 kW. The power consumption of the Explorer is 40 to 60 kW. (40 kW listed on slide 9 to 60 kW listed on the UC-Davis website).
  • The 3D-Flow Data Processing Boards of the 3D-CBS system handle 256 channels per board (see figure in the summary 2505 and details on pages 154-156 of the link showing it can make available 512 channels and 1024 channels per VXI board). These 256-channel data processing boards also perform the functionality of the six racks of computers in the Explorer system which are therefore not needed. Nine Data Processing Boards handling 2,304 channels are housed in one crate. The Explorer Detector Boards can handle only 16-channels per board and do not have data processing capability. The 120 Detector Boards of the Explorer handling 1,920 channels are housed in 12 Detector Crates as shown on slide 8. All data are saved on hard drives and processed later by a farm of computer housed in 6 racks.
  • My breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA invention used in the 3D-CBS captures all valuable data from tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per valid data captured and has the capability of processing over 40,000 TB data in one day compared to the 40 TB of data in one day acquired and stored for later processing by the farm of six racks of computers by the Explorer (see the UC-Davis website). The 3D-CBS requires a storage capacity of less than 1GB to store results and no storage during acquisition because data is processed in real-time by the 3D-Flow system. The high processing capability of my 3D-Flow invention breaking the speed barrier in real-time applications allows all valuable information related to the characteristics of the crystals to be extracted, thus allowing the use of more economical crystals which reduces the cost of the 3D-CBS device.

 

 

Table 4 – Features of the abstract/summary 2505 are compared to the Explorer by Surti and his co-authors

Description EXPLORER 3D-CBS
Crystal Type Expensive LYSO 491,520 crystals Economical BGO <3,000

crystals

Number of electronic channels 1,920 2,304
Number of Channels per Board 16 256
Number of Detector Boards 120 9
Number of Crates housing the Detector Boards (the 3D-CBS crate is also housing the computer to process valid data and provide results in analytical and graphical form) 12 1
Capability to acquire and process data each day 40 TB >40,000 TB
Hard Drive’s size needed each day 40 TB 1 GB
Number of racks containing computers to process acquired data 4 to 6 0
Power Consumption 40 to 60 kW 3 to 4 kW
Sensitivity Less than the 3D-CBS Ultra-Sensitive
Cost of the Device 30 to 50 times current PET 2 to 3 times current PET
Examination Cost

(what matters to the patient)

Higher than current cost because the throughput cannot be 30 to 50 times current PET Lower than current cost because the throughput can be higher than 2 to 3 times current PET
Potential to save millions of lives

(what should matter to humanity: to solve the world’s most deadly calamity)

Cannot prove to save lives on a sample population because each day it cannot process 40,000 TB data from tumor markers Can prove on a sample population to save many lives because each day it can process cost-effectively over 40,000 TB data from tumor markers
Potential to reduce healthcare costs

(what should matter to politicians to solve the world’s most costly calamity)

Increases healthcare cost because of its exorbitant cost; losing many lives lowers productivity The lower examination cost saves many lives; those who live instead of dying return to be productive and are removed from

healthcare bill

 

Data for the Explorer reported in the above table are derived from publications, slide presentations and several press releases made by the authors of the Explorer and from calculations based on the data reported in the articles.

 

Data and feasibility of the 3D-CBS (3D-Complete Body Screening) is proven by the 3D-Flow innovative basic cncept proven feasible and functional in hardware in two modular boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors and recently the 3D-Flow OPRA proven feasible and cost-effective by 59 quotes from reputable industries.

 

a.       How the peer-review system suppressed my innovations and enabled reviewers to copy them

The reason why the Explorer was funded with $15.5 million of taxpayer money even though an analytical study could prove before construction that it would not be able to save many lives and would increase healthcare costs is because the peer-review system for approving/rejecting articles and funding research projects is rigged and the Director of Extramural Research of the National Institute of Health, Michael Laurer, refuses to have a dialogue or even read my work as he believes  the peer-review system is fair.  If he would have a dialogue or read my work he would know that many of my ideas have been copied by the authors of the Explorer, yet my 3D-CBS continues to go unfunded after 19 years from the first request for a grant to NIH even though, unlike the Explorer, it would be able to save millions of lives and reduce healthcare costs.

 

My inventions have received extensive recognition and endorsements in many letters from top experts in the field; my articles have been published in prestigious peer-review scientific journals; I was often invited to give seminars at prestigious events and conferences, yet influential scientists and agents at funding agencies in the specific field within IEEE, government and private organizations who approve/reject articles, presentations at conference and funding have obstructed, rejected, crushed my inventions for more than two decades.

 

These influential scientists and agents at funding agencies refuse to follow scientific procedures, refuse transparency in a public dialogue, refuse an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence and have rejected for twenty years my articles, presentations and requests for funding my 3D-CBS to improve PET sensitivity, intensify computation at the front-end of PET device and improve the electronics, claiming it was necessary instead to improve spatial resolution (to the detriment of sensitivity), intensify computation at the back end rather than at the front-end and improve crystals rather than electronics.

 

After receiving $906,000 in grants from DOE in 1995, and proving my basic 3D-Flow invention was feasible (generating the RTL files for the Silicon Foundry to manufacture the ASIC 3D-Flow processors and developing the software tools: simulator, assembler, test vectors, etc.) and would benefit many fields, including Medical Imaging, my requests for funding have been rejected for the past two decades.

 

Here are some examples of the recurring reasons given by reviewers for their rejections:

I have used all means available such as appeals, talking to and exchanging emails with leaders at NIH and NCI, meeting NIH and NIBIB Directors at a press conference on Medical Imaging, requesting the help of U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas State Senator Jane Nelson, Senator John Cornyn, U.S. Congressman Michael Burgess, U.S. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and many others to request transparency in science by having a fair public scientific procedure similar to the review of my basic 3D-Flow invention held on December 14, 1993, at FERMILAB.

 

Despite all these efforts to have a public analytical discussion between the reviewer and the inventor based on calculations and scientific evidence and resolve any disagreements by setting up an experiment where the results would be the judge, funding agencies asked me to follow the reviewers’ advice, give up on my inventions, modify my research, approach, objectives toward improving spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity, intensify computation at the back end rather than at the front-end and improve crystals rather than electronics. 

 

In fact, the letter from Dr. Norka Ruiz Bravo, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at NIH to U.S. Senator John Cornyn who enquired on my behalf about the rejection of my proposals, made exactly these requests: “NIH staff have provided advice on being responsive to the peer reviewers’ comments (focusing on both the strengths and weakness), and they have provided specific instructions for submitting a revised application. They have consistently recommended that he [Crosetto] spend time analyzing the results and gathering as much feedback as possible from the summary statements, senior investigators, and peers at his organization and/or in his field”.

 

Furthermore, Dr. Bravo, instead of identifying an expert in particle physics and the specific technology that is key to improving PET efficiency, suggested I submit my proposal to another review panel (SSS-8), Bioengineering and Physiology Review Panel, who are further away in expertise in particle detection and in accurately capturing as many 511 keV valid pair of photons (tumor markers) as possible at the lowest cost per valid pair captured.

 

b.       It took fifteen years to recognize that the electronics in PET was a problem

Because it was my duty to inform the scientific community and those in power in the field about my invention that would benefit humanity, I wrote a technical-scientific book entitled:”400+ times improved PET efficiency for lower-dose radiation, lower-cost cancer screening” 200 copies of which I distributed free of charge to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, and I asked Terry Jones (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer), a prominent leader in the field if he could review the book that I gave him (in 2000, Terry Jones was with Hammersmith Hospital in London and later moved to UC-Davis in California).  Jones appointed Steve DeRenzo as the technical expert in the field to review my book. I knew DeRenzo’s back in 1992 when I was working at the Superconducting Super Collider and I had difficulty addressing scientific arguments about one of my articles with him and his colleague, Bill Moses (who is now the leader of the Explorer project).  I received the same rejections from DeRenzo and from Moses. They published many articles on measurements of crystal detectors which I found useful and I recognize their expertise in this field; however, contrary to the very favorable reviews of my book on Amazon.com, they obstructed my inventions beneficial to medical imaging and other fields as you can read from DeRenzo who stated in his review of my book:

 

We do not view the electronics as a problem, either in terms of performance or cost”.

 

It took 15 years from when I wrote my book and 19 years from my first rejection for funding by NIH, for those in power in the field such as Bill Moses to reverse their position toward my direction of research that they have obstructed for decades.  Read Moses’ 2015 press release:

 

«We’re developing the electronic interface between the detectors and the computer algorithm—and the electronics for this scanner is an order of magnitude more complicated than what’s been done before,” says Moses».

 

However, 160 million people have died from cancer (12 million were Americans) since I first claimed that to improve PET medical imaging efficiency it is necessary to improve the electronics and not the crystals. Many of these people could have been saved if the funding agencies would have requested a public review of my invention similar to the major scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow invention held at FERMILAB in 1993.

If funding agencies had requested an open, public analytical discussion of my 3D-CBS invention based on calculations and scientific evidence before assigning taxpayers and donation money, it would not have taken 19 years for influential people like Bill Moses, Terry Jones, DeRenzo and others to reverse their belief that there was no need to improve the electronics of PET, and the life-saving advantages and benefits would have been evident and taxpayer money would have been put to good use.

 

Steve DeRenzo had written a negative review of my technical-scientific in the year 2000, but his claim that in order to improve PET efficiency, crystal detectors should be improved and there was no need to improve the electronics, was proven wrong by many articles and projects built by third parties after DeRenzo’s review. Even Siemens, a leader in this industry, had to recant their statements after I had a day-long meeting with the President of Siemens Nuclear Medicine and Director of PET, followed by conference calls with Siemens Head of Research and Chief of electronics. At first, they stated that it was impossible to improve PET efficiency by improving the electronics, and that there was no need anyway, but five years after our meeting Siemens recanted all their statements when they published on their website that they had increased PET efficiency by 70% by improving the electronics.

 

c.       How many years will it take to recognize that the 3D-CBS can save millions of lives, is more efficient and over ten times less expensive than the Explorer that cannot save many lives?

d.        

We are now at the same junction as 19 years ago. Funding agencies are responsible to taxpayers and donors to use their money to fund research projects that gives them best return in saving lives and money. Here is a summary of the two projects they had to consider:

  1. a) The 3D-CBS first described in the year 2000 in my technical-scientific book, updated in several subsequent articles and documents, and hand-delivered to the Director of NIH on January 31, 2006, has now been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries to build the 3D-Flow OPRA data processing electronics with the capability to process over 40,000 TB per day in one crate of electronics, requiring less than 1 GB data storage per day, for a total power consumption of the entire 3D-CBS system of 4 kW. The 3D-CBS can prove on a sample population that it can save many lives because each day it can cost-effectively process over 40,000 TB data from tumor markers.
  2. b) The Explorer project that has copied several ideas from the 3D-CBS. Although the authors of the Explorer after 19 years now understood the importance of improving the electronics in PET, it can be proven in an analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence that 6 racks of computers with the capability of processing 40 TB data per day stored on hard drives, acquired by 12 crates of electronics for a total power consumption of 60 kW would provide a device that could not prove to save lives on a sample population because it cannot process 40,000 TB data every day from tumor markers. Furthermore, the Explorer is less efficient and more than ten times as expensive as the 3D-CBS.

Clearly, the advice by Dr. Ruiz Bravo, NIH Director of Extramural Research, in her letter dated May 10, 2004, to U.S. Senator John Cornyn that I should follow the reviewers’ guidance and modify my research, approach, objectives toward improving spatial resolution (to the detriment of sensitivity), and improve crystals rather than electronics, essentially giving up on my invention turned out to be wrong because it has been recanted by influential leaders in the field who are now receiving $15.5 million from NIH to build the Explorer, which stated in its 2015 press releasethe electronics for this scanner is an order of magnitude more complicated than what’s been done before”.

 

Perhaps Dr. Ruiz Bravo believed in good faith in the fairness and professional integrity of her reviewers and in the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR); however, because the current peer-review system is subject to corruption and because it turned out that the advice from her reviewers was obviously wrong and more troubling facts prove that influential leaders copied several of my ideas, this issue should be addressed to avoid further needless loss of lives and wastage taxpayer money.

 

Now, I have informed my findings regarding misconduct in the peer-review system to NIH Director Francis Collins, NCI Director Doug Lowy, several agents at NIH, and NIH Director of Extramural Research Michael Laurer. Dr. Michael Laurer realized the seriousness of the allegations and suggested I report them to the Office of Scientific Integrity.

 

Out of the $15.5 million in taxpayer money for the Explorer, $3,054,873 was given to the Explorer team by NIH in 2015 and $3,314,184 in 2016. By the end of 2018 most of the $15.5 million will be delivered. An analytical discussion based on calculations and scientific evidence can prove that major conceptual flaws with the Explorer project will waste taxpayer money because it cannot save many lives, increases healthcare costs, is less efficient and is over ten times more expensive than the 3D-CBS.

 

In addition, the 3D-CBS ER/DSU unit costing $23,000 for duplicates listed on Table 6 at page 29 and described from page 149 to 170 of the proposal provides the list-mode feature of the Explorer but with higher capability to store raw data from the PET detector and at a much higher granularity for research study. Three reputable industries have provided quotes for NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) of the 3D-CBS ER/DSU. The NRE cost is $350,000 and provides the first 7 units.

 

I was told on July 20, 2016, by Dr. Gretchen Wood from the office of the NIH Director Francis Collins that Michael Laurer was in a meeting with NIH executives discussing who would be responsible at NIH to address analytically technical issues based on calculations and scientific evidence that my 3D-CBS is more efficient, over ten times less expensive than the Explorer and could save millions of lives with a cost-effective early cancer detection, while the Explorer funded by NIH for $15.5 million cannot and is increasing healthcare cost.  She said I would hear a response from Laurer later that day or the following day; however, to date I have not received an answer. If there is no capability at NIH to solve this issue analytically, they should fund both projects and let experimental results on a sample population be the judge.

 

e.       Several senior scientists who know the leaders in Medical Imaging and appreciate my invention have tried to bring my invention to their attention, even inviting them to a dialogue addressing scientific issues in an open forum, but they always refused.

Uwe Bratzer, the General Chairman of the 2008 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference, agreed to organize a forum to discuss and critique my 3D-CBS invention, and asked me who he should invite as experts. I named Bill Moses, Steve DeRenzo, among others and Alberto del Guerra (http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1363) who was invited to participate to workshops and reviews of the 3D-CBS innovation held at the University of Pavia and at the Hospital S. Matteo in Pavia, Italy. However, they all refused.

 

The influential people in Medical Imaging are well known in the scientific community and there have been several in addition to those who wrote letters of endorsement of my invention who have tried to help bring my inventions to the attention of these influential scientists. For example, Chris Parkman from CERN, who was Chairman of the Industrial Exhibition of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in 2000 in Lyon, France, gave me a booth at the Exhibition free of charge where I could demonstrate on the computer a simulation of the 3D-Flow system made of thousands of 3D-Flow processors.

 

The following year he did the same, giving me a free booth at the Industrial Exhibition of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, California, where I could setup my two Altera prototype boards with my 3D-Flow system of 8 processors implemented in two FPGAs proving the concept of my invention working in hardware. Visitors who stopped by my booth could select a desired pattern of clusters on switches; the results were displayed on LED and the oscilloscope provided the waveform of the signals with the speed of the system.

 

Parkman kindly told several people, including the General Chairman of the conference, to stop by my booth and strategically placed it next to the coffee booth, so many people would have a chance to see it. I also invited Bill Moses and Steve DeRenzo to stop by my booth when they were at the coffee booth, but although they agreed to, they did not stop by. The last times I spoke to Bill Moses was at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seoul, South Korea, and in 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle. On both occasions I asked him what he thought of my 3D-CBS project that I presented in Seoul. He told me that he would read my 2013 article and get back with me. Next thing I saw was his press release sent by a friend of mine regarding his $15.5 million grant from NIH which contained several of my ideas.

 

The late Emeritus Professor in Physics Walter Selove told me one day that he had been very fortunate to arrange a meeting with Bill Moses in Berkeley to tell him about my 3D-CBS. However, Bill Moses showed no interest.

 

f.        Reviewers and leaders were aware of the advantages and benefits of my inventions

A few facts to help those who want to fix the rigged peer-review system. Not only were Surti (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer project) and his colleagues aware of my inventions prior to copying several of my ideas for the Explorer as they cited in 2013 in their slide 5, but this issue has been addressed for more than a decade when I wrote a book in the year 2000 and cited Surti’s work and the work of his colleague Joel Karp (who I believe was his supervisor at that time) at the same University of Pennsylvania.  The late Emeritus Professor in physics Walter Selove at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote a letter of endorsement to me for the 3D-CBS on April 14, 1999, told me that he visited Surti’s group and spoke with Joel Karp about my invention. I had a correspondence with Joel Karp (who is now one of the authors of the Explorer project) when he was the General Chairman of the 2002 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference and all my papers were rejected. I could not convince him of the importance for the scientific community and for humanity to let me present my inventions at the conference, he repeatedly in his email confirmed the rejection of all my papers. I sent him a paper copy of my book, and he acknowledged receiving and reading it and responded on August 19, 2002 with the following:

 

Thank you very much for sending me your book, which I received on Friday.  I did briefly look through it to get a better appreciation about your proposals for improved PET.  Certainly a very large axial FOV can increase sensitivity dramatically, and thereby decrease scan time and cost, while also increasing counting statistics. It’s not obvious to me, however, whether the trade-off is effective between instrument cost and scan cost – certainly the instrument cost goes up significantly, even for low cost scintillators such as BGO.  For LSO or GSO the cost seems prohibitive.  Also, it’s not immediately clear that the trade-off is effective between increase of trues and commensurate increase of scatter and randoms, especially for scintillators with poor energy resolution…”

 

However, 13 years later, Joel Karp proposed with his co-authors, including Surti, the Explorer project in articles, slide presentations, and a $15.5 million request for funding to NIH. The Explorer is using the expensive L(Y)SO that he said in his email is cost prohibitive. If fact, in the case of the Explorer, he is right as it costs 30 to 50 times the current PET and is less efficient than the 3D-CBS.

 

g.       After crushing my inventions for more than a decade which would have been a TRUE PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research, the same people now claim a paradigm change after copying several of my ideas to build the Explorer which cannot make a paradigm change in saving lives, cannot reduce healthcare costs and advancing research because it is less sensitive and over ten times more expensive than my 3D-CBS.

After many of the authors of the Explorer who are listed in slide 1 rejected my papers, book, and created obstacles to my inventions for more than a decade, in 2015 they took many of my ideas, even my words and claims that they had rejected years before and used them in their documents, beginning with the title of the $15.5 million proposal claiming a paradigm change (the same I claimed more than a decade before), the abstract of their $15.5 million proposal uses several of my statements such as the increase in efficiency can provide benefits in lower radiation, or higher throughput, or better signals for early detection, or a balance of all these, and even my analogy comparing the lower radiation dose to the radiation received during a transatlantic flight on the cover page of my book ISBN 0-9702897-0-7, deposited in the year 2000 at the Library of Congress Catalog-in-Publication Data Card Number: 00-191510, that I gave them and other leaders in the field when I distributed 200 copies free of charge at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon (France) was reported in their abstract of the request for the $15.5 million to NIH.

 

Despite all the articles I wrote about the 3D-CBS, my personal conversation and email exchanges with leaders of the Explorer Project decades before they announced the Explorer project, despite other scientists informing them about my 3D-CBS and 3D-Flow invention, I cannot find a citation of my prior work in Explorer articles, yet they claim in the title of their $15.5 million proposal “Explorer: changing the molecular imaging PARADIGM with a total body PET.”

 

It is over a decade that I spelled out in great detail the PARADIGM CHANGE in molecular imaging that a true total body PET can bring. My 3D-CBS was recognized as the first true total body PET by G. Borasi, et al. article (also cited by Simon Cherry in slide 5 of his presentation), published in the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (2010) 37:1629–1632. This article states that Crosetto’s 3D-CBS technology is the first, true “total-body”. I supported calling it a paradigm change by detailing how it is cost-effective in accurately capturing all possible signals from the tumor markers, while the Explorer capturing only 40 TB of data per day and processing them using 4 to 6 racks of computers is not appropriate to call a paradigm change because it cannot make a significant impact on clinical studies or in reducing cancer deaths.

 

Here are a few of my articles and documents where I describe in detail how this paradigm change can be achieved with my 3D-CBS.

 

  1. In 2006, I published an article in World Scientific of a presentation I gave the year before at the ICATPP conference. The title of the article is “Rethinking Positron Emission Technology for Early Cancer Detection”. Excerpt from the article: “In order to use Positron Emission Technology effectively for early cancer detection, a paradigm shift is necessary. To illustrate this, I am going to compare objectives, specifications and implementations of current PET, “Type A,” and the new technology, “Type B.” Type B makes use of innovations [1], [2] and has been implemented in a device called 3D-CBS [3].” The table reporting PET of Type A and Type B details this Paradigm Change.

 

  1. In 2008 I submitted a paper to IEEE-MIC that was rejected despite an invitation by its General Chairman, Uwe Bratzler, to submit it and his promise that in the event of rejection I would receive a scientific reason. Instead, the only reason I received from the Chairman of the MIC Conference from lines 1421 to 1431 of the document at this link was:

1421 From: wolfgang.enghardt@oncoray.de [mailto:wolfgang.enghardt@oncoray.de]

1422 Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 8:59 AM

1423 To: crosetto@att.net

1424 Subject: MIC 2008 Abstract 3073

1425

1426 Dear Prof. Crosetto,

1427

1428 We regret to inform you that your submission (#3073) “Basic Corrections

1429 Needed for a Paradigm Change in the Direction of Cancer Research That Will

1430 Provide a Substantial Reduction of Premature Cancer Death” has been

1431 rejected.

 

If the General Chairman of the IEEE Conference, Uwe Bratzler could not enforce professional ethical conduct from his sub-conference chairmen, this shows how powerful the leaders in the field of Medical Imaging at IEEE are in rejecting a paper on a true PARADIGM CHANGE in Medical imaging and claiming the same nine years later, …even without the design of a device supporting the claim.

 

  1. In 2010, I presented a paper with 14 co-authors and approximately 1,000 cosigners at the Workshop “Physics for Health” held at CERN in Geneva, claiming a PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research. The title of the paper is: “Progress in the domain of physics applications in life science with an invention for substantial reduction of premature cancer deaths: The need for a PARADIGM CHANGE in oncology research. The abstract was translated into ten languages, including Chinese, Japanese and Russian. Also this article was missed by the authors of the Explorer?

 

  1. After meeting NIH Director, Elias Zerhouni at a press conference in Medical Imaging on January 31, 2006, on April 10, 2007, I wrote him a Ietter stating on page 19 that it was necessary “…to activate a true paradigm shift in approaching the war on cancer (by measuring the minimum abnormal metabolism targeted to early diagnosis of cancer that saves lives, rather than being limited to measure tumor dimension that does not save lives)”, which was my 3D-CBS approach.

 

After I received from Simon Cherry (who is one of the authors of the Explorer project)  a copy of the slides of his presentation with the list in his slide 5 titled “Not a New Idea!” with a reference to my 2003 paper, I asked him why he did not reference my book, and two articles all written prior to the year 2000 (I was able to present my 2003 paper thanks to Ralph James who was the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conference because the years after 2000 all chairmen and reviewers rejected all my papers at IEEE-MIC, including Joel Karp who was the General Chairman in 2002).

 

His answer was because my 2003 paper was only 5 pages, and therefore easier to understand than the 20-page articles or the 225-page book.

 

I asked Simon Cherry to address the choices he made for the other references and what he believed was the innovative or key features in the articles he cited; however, Cherry never followed up. If we had had an in-depth discussion on the innovative contribution of each paper cited by Cherry, it would reveal that the breakthrough was provided by the 3D-CBS. (It is worth mentioning that the cited article by Borasi et al. is in fact an overview of several PET, including the 3D-CBS, and does not describe any other cost-effective true total body PET that can make a paradigm shift in Medical Imaging while is recognizing «The first proposal for a truly “total body” PET system (120-160 cm AFOV) came from an Italian physicist, Crosetto[6]». This paper was the follow up to a presentation I gave of my 3D-CBS in 2008 to Borasi and his colleagues at the S. Maria Nuova hospital in Reggio Emilia that Borasi et al. followed with a 42-page article reporting from page 26 to 68 our discussion that was published in May 2009 in the “Notiziario di Medicina Nucleare ed Imaging Molecolare”).

 

Cherry did not mention an earlier design of a PET with long field of view that I discussed during a coffee break at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD conference with Benjamin Tsui who was familiar with the design because he review it, however, Tsui said the author never explained how he would implement such a device with a long field of view. None of the other designs, even those with long field of views, could claim innovations in electronics, assembly of the detector, coupling of the detector with the electronics, algorithms, etc. as the 3D-CBS can claim.  Only the 3D-CBS can solve the problem of cost-effectively and accurately capturing all possible signals from tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per each valid signal captured, allowing a paradigm change in Medical Imaging capable of detecting the minimum anomalies in biological processes, enabling an effective early detection of cancer and many other diseases at a curable stage.

 

The above facts speak for themselves that there is a lack of fairness and professional ethical conduct in the scientific community which is essential when billions of dollars per year are at stake.

So how do funding agencies distribute taxpayer and donation money and make these scientists accountable to implement the mission of the agency? The short answer is: “The agencies do not make scientists/reviewers accountable”.

 

They continue to be the privileged professionals in society who apparently receive more trust from the public than judges, doctors or any other category of professionals. Looking at these facts and the damage non-accountability for scientists is causing society, the media should inform the public and a reform of the peer review system to make scientists accountable is urgently needed for the interest of everyone.

 

h.      My consideration in the 2505 Abstract/Summary to satisfy the comments/requests from previous rejections

When I prepared the 2505 abstract/summary this year I took into consideration the reviewers’ comments/requests of last year reported below (full text of the rejection claims by the 2015 reviewers is available on page 245 of the proposal):

 

“…I would like to hear a discussion about this to “once and for all” settle the question raised – is this approach any good? …Proposes that cancer will be effectively eliminated if low cost, high efficiency PET cameras are developed. No design parameters, hardware description, performance estimates, or technical supporting material …No tangible material is provided that could allow to assess the pertinence of this approach. Performance estimates compared to other approaches are highly speculative. Also the link to a previous submission is not clear.” 

 

I made sure this year the information was complete in the 300 word text abstract and two-page summary with one figure showing all components of the system with a link included in the abstract to the details whose feasibility is supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries. However, after all my papers have been rejected by IEEE-MIC for 16 years with the exception of 2003 when Ralph James was the General Chairman of the IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference and have now been rejected again this year with a comment sent by the Chairmen, which includes Surti, asking what kind of system is the «“ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS”. I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information » after Surti explained in slides 3 and 4 what an ultra-sensitive PET is and in slide 5 provided a reference to my article, about the 3D-CBS. It is therefore evident that we have a rigged peer-review process that is damaging to taxpayers and breaches the professional ethics of scientists.

 

It is evident that the reviewers have not  given legitimate scientific reasons to reject funding all of my proposals since my last grant of $906,000 in 1995, and all my papers and presentations at IEEE-NSS-MIC since 2000 (with the exception of 2003 when Ralph James was the General Chairman), and for closing the door to the dialogue when I proposed two workshops in 2014 to allow young and senior scientists to briefly present their work and then question each other for hours in public and not just five minutes after a presentation.  Refusing the scientific dialogue in a public transparent scientific competition it is like the unfair action of not letting an athlete participate to the Olympics because has demonstrated higher skill than others who cut him/her off because otherwise will lose. However, the difference in this case is that the biggest damage and unfairness is not just to the inventor who is cut off, but advancements in science are delayed, progress and humanity are damaged for being deprived from the benefits of inventions that will provide well-being.

 

The excuse for rejection of my 2505 abstract because “I think it is not expected that the reviewer starts a literature research to find the lacking information” is not an appropriate reason because reviewers had all the information they needed in my 2505 abstract/summary and it is also clear that reviewers and leaders in the field knew about my inventions during the past two decades. Many have written letters of endorsement, or have worked to fix the peer-review unfairness of my papers such as the IEEE senior scientist Aaron Brill in 2000, the IEEE General Chairman Uwe Bratzler in 2008, and several others who were unsuccessful; however, until the rigged peer-review system is fixed for everyone, those in power with special personal interests or conflict of interests as in the case of Surti will take advantage of the system’s loopholes and crush innovations, waste millions of taxpayer money, and deprive humanity of benefits.

 

2.       Quantitative data & technical merits of the project/research provided in the text of the 2505 Abstract

This abstract contains extremely valuable quantitative data & technical merit of the project/research:

 

  1. The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS has the capability of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation (on spatial and time resolution, energy and sensitivity) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers
  2. it reduces the radiation dose to the patient and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.
  3. enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases
  4. providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases
  5. The basic 3D-Flow invention …it was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and in two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size

 

This abstract describes the features of the ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA which is capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation on spatial and time resolution, energy and sensitivity at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers.

 

It is impossible to list all quantitative information in a 300 word abstract; however, the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) provided in the first line of the abstract or the two pages of the 2505 Abstract/Summary provided within this abstract will enable Visvikis, Surti and their reviewers, experts in the field of medical imaging, to extract quantitative data and technical merits and build Table 1. In particular, Surti who is also among the authors of the Explorer cannot ignore the clear picture in the last page of the 2505 Abstract/Summary showing how one 3D-Flow OPRA crate having nine data processing boards with 256-channels each can replace his 12 crates with 120 boards shown in slide 8 of his presentation.

 

All these are quantitative information that Surti, should be very familiar with as an author of the Explorer and after reading my 2505 Abstract should be able to compile the first twelve rows of Table 1.

 

Specifically, Explorer vs 3D-CBS in:

  • 391,520 LYSO crystals (slide 9) vs. <3,000 BGO crystals;
  • 1,920 electronic channels (slide 7) vs. 2,304 electronic channels;
  • 16 channels/board (slide 8) vs. 256 channels/board;
  • 120 electronic boards (slide 8) vs. 9 electronic boards;
  • 12 crates (slide 8) vs. 1 crate;
  • capable of acquiring and processing 40 TB data each day (UC-Davis website) vs. capable of acquiring and processing >40,000 TB data each day;
  • the need of 40 TB data storage per day (UC-Davis website) vs. the need of 1 GB data storage per day;
  • 4 to 6 racks containing computers to process the acquired data (UC-Davis website) vs. zero racks;
  • 40 to 60 kW power consumption (UC-Davis website) vs. 3 to 4 kW power consumption;
  • The Explorer is less sensitive than the 3D-CBS;
  • costs 30 to 50 times that of current PET vs. 3D-CBS which is 2 to 3 times the cost of current PET;
  • an examination cost higher than current PET vs. an examination cost lower than current PET.

All the above are quantitative data easy to be extracted from the figure on the last page of the Abstract/Summary, and supported in great detail in the document available at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) provided in the first line of the abstract whose construction of its components are proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. Furthermore, the 3D-Flow innovative basic concept used in the 3D-CBS (3D-Complete Body Screening) was proven functional in hardware in two modular boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors.

 

3.       Innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text of the 2505 Abstract

This abstract contains extremely valuable innovations and significance of the project/research:

  1. The ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body screening) Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA system capable of extracting ALL valuable information from radiation at the lowest cost per valid signal captured from tumor markers, saves lives by enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases with the potential to save millions of lives while reducing healthcare costs
  2. it reduces radiation dose to the patient, reduces cost, and provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes
  3. The basic 3D-Flow invention was first acclaimed in 1992 in many letters from scientists. In 1993 it was recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers in a formal scientific review.
  4. It was proven feasible and functional in hardware using two FPGA chips in 2001 and in two modular industrialized boards in 2003, suitable to build 3D-Flow systems for detectors of any size.

 

This abstract describes the features of the ultra-sensitive 3D-CBS Medical Imaging device based on the 3D-Flow OPRA which because of its innovations has a very high significance in saving many lives by enabling an effective early detection of cancer and other diseases, providing physicians with more accurate information to improve diagnoses, prognoses and improve monitoring of diseases with the potential to save millions of lives while reducing healthcare costs. It provides valuable information to doctors on anomalies in morphological changes and biological processes.

 

The significance in saving many lives and reducing healthcare costs is provided by my 1992 basic 3D-Flow invention and all subsequent inventions in detector assembly, topology, geometry, electronics, cable assembly, coupling the detector with the electronics, algorithms, etc., which created my 2015 invention of the 3D-CBS based on the 3D-Flow OPRA offering a staggering efficiency improvement at a very competitive price compared to other PET systems/approaches such as the Explorer.

 

The basic conceptual invention of the 3D-Flow in 1992 has evolved into several other inventions that now allow the 3D-CBS Medical Imaging device represented on the last page of the 2505 Abstract/Summary to be built.  Its significance is listed in the 300 words abstract supported in the two page summary and detailed in the document accessible at the link provided in the first line of the abstract. The 3D-Flow innovation capable of processing a frame (or data set acquired from the PET detector) for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive frames (or data sets) has the advantage in the new 3D-Flow OPRA design to minimize distance between components, minimize power consumption, optimize algorithm executions to capture and accurately measure all possible valid signals from the tumor markers at the lowest possible cost per each valid signal captured.

 

To give an idea of the staggering difference in performance of the 3D-CBS based on the 3D-Flow OPRA, it has the capability to acquire and process in real time over 40,000 TB data in one day compared to 40 TB data of the Explorer.

 

This performance capability of the 3D-CBS enables an effective early detection of minimum anomalies in biological processes which is valuable information to the doctors that no other device can provide. This information helps doctors diagnose health problems at the earliest and most curable stage. It requires very low radiation to the patient and a low examination cost because the processing capability of the 3D-Flow OPRA allows the use of economical crystals (e.g. BGO).

 

The innovations of the 3D-CBS offer unprecedented advantages that can provide a great significance in a more powerful diagnostic tool for doctors to save lives and reduce costs which other approaches cannot claim because the 12 crates of electronics for data acquisition, the 6 racks of computers and the 40 TB storage capability of the Explorer cannot acquire and process 40,000 TB in one day like the 3D-CBS can. Furthermore, Joel Karp, one of the authors of the Explorer, admitted in an email (see text of the email at this link) he sent me on August 19, 2002 that: “For LSO or GSO the cost seems prohibitive” (LYSO used in the Explorer has characteristics and costs similar to LSO). In fact, the LYSO crystals together with the electronics listed above consuming 60 kW (compared to the 4 kW of the 3D-CBS), makes the Explorer unsuitable to save many lives and reduce healthcare costs because it is not able to capture and process over 40,000 TB per day and because of its prohibitive cost.

 

The 3D-CBS innovations have solved these problems, and the last line of the first page of the 2505 Summary summarized the significance of this paper with the words: “This project plans to test 10,000 people (as detailed before) and achieve a 33% reduction of cancer deaths in 6 years and 50% in 10 years.”

 

The innovative merits and significance of the 3D-CBS based on the 3D-Flow system are supported by calculations, logical reasoning, scientific evidence, comparisons with other similar devices and its hardware implementation proven to be feasible in the 2505 Abstract/Summary It is supported in great detail in the document available at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) found on the first line of my abstract, and the construction of its components have been proven feasible by 59 quotes from reputable industries. Furthermore, the 3D-Flow innovative basic concept used in the 3D-CBS  was proven functional in hardware in two modular boards each with 68 x 3D-Flow processors.

4.       Supporting material to the quantitative data, technical merits, innovation and significance of the project/research provided in the text and figures worth a thousand words in the 2505 Summary

The first page of the 2505 Summary describes the features and advantages of the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening), the usefulness of the new features to make a paradigm change in anatomical and molecular imaging enabling the detection and localization of minimal abnormal biological processes, providing accurate measurements, requiring minimum radiation dose safe to the patient, helping doctors to learn about the development of diseases such as cancer and other diseases at an early, highly curable stage.

 

Next is a list of the misconceptions that have driven the development of PET in the wrong direction of improving the spatial resolution to the detriment of sensitivity, using the traditional 16 cm Field of View (FOV) geometry with expensive crystals rather than my proposed long FOV (120 to 160 cm) with economical crystals. I have documented this wrong direction with the reference (at the bottom of the first page of the summary) to the rejection claims of ten proposals submitted to NIH in nine years. NIH reviewers also denied technological innovations in my proposals asking me to focus on improving the crystals rather than improving the electronics. These wrong directions are now being recognized as a mistake and have been reversed 15 years later as stated in the recent 2015 press release by Moses’: «We’re developing the electronic interface between the detectors and the computer algorithm—and the electronics for this scanner is an order of magnitude more complicated than what’s been done before,” says Moses»

 

The last paragraph on the first page of the summary lays out a procedure that all researchers and leaders who want to maximize the reduction of cancer deaths and cost should be able to agree upon. This procedure sets objective results measured on a sample population that are fair to everyone who wants to achieve the goal of reducing cancer deaths and costs whether through a new drug, vaccine, medical imaging device, or healthy lifestyle promotion, etc. The procedure calls for all applicants to be responsible by requesting them to judge themselves by estimating the results they expect to attain in reducing cancer deaths and costs with their project (or combined with other existing techniques) when measured on a sample population, requesting they defend their claims with scientific arguments answering questions from colleagues and reviewers in an open, public review/forum.

 

The second page of the 2505 Summary in the title and subtitle summarizes the features of the 3D-CBS, its potential benefits and the detailed technical characteristics of the 3D-CBS unit with 14,400 x 3D-Flow processors in a volume of 16 cm cube of electronics executing up to 120 Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms Steps (OPRAS) on 64-bit data words per channel arriving in parallel from 2,304 detector channels at 20 MHz.

 

Next, there are six boxes posing six questions with their relative answers that address the problem to be solved, cancer, from the general problem of being the world’s most deadly and costly calamity to the practical solution through a series of logical steps. The steps identify the most cost-effective item (in this case technology) that will have the greatest impact in reducing cancer deaths and cost. The questions are:

 

  • What is the most deadly and costly calamity?
  • Do we know what does and doesn’t solve the problem?
  • Does data support these findings?
  • What is the best method for early detection?
  • Can we prove which method is the best?
  • What should we improve? What results should we expect?

For each question I provide an answer supported by data, calculations or scientific evidence. The logical reasoning continues in greater detail by answering two additional questions:

  • Why is extracting ALL valuable information from radiation important to improve early cancer detection?
  • How is ALL valuable information from radiation extracted?

What follows is the description of Figure 5 which worth a thousand words showing the entire 3D-CBS system with mechanical dimensions to scale:

  • Bottom left represents the whole 3D-CBS detector, the detector element coupled to PMT or SiPM and the type of signals generated that are sent to the bottom “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate.
  • Two 400 pin-connectors carrying 256 signals per VME board through 256 Twinax cables from the “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate to the “3D-Flow System” crate.
  • Each connector/cable assembly consists of two PCB boards 210 mm x 37.84 mm at both ends of 128-Twinax cables grouped in 4 x 16 ribbon on two sides of the small board. These ribbon cables are soldered onto the small boards with traces carrying the information to the 400-pin connectors. This assembly is described in detail on page 193 of the document at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) found on the first line of the abstract.
  • Central left represents the “3D-FLOW SYSTEM” crate receiving the 256-signals per board from the lower “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate.
  • Center figures represent the nine VME boards, 2 cm wide housed in the “3D-FLOW SYSTEM” crate connected through 2,304 Twinax ribbon cables to the “FRONT-END ELECTRONICS, A/D converters” crate.
  • The description of the VME 256 channels 3D-Flow data processing board is reported on page 154 and 155 of the document at the link (www.UnitedToEndCancer.org/doc/900.pdf) provided on the first line of the abstract.  Two reputable industries provided the quotes for the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering), and for a small production of 32 of these boards.
  • The figure on the far right of the “3D-FLOW SYSTEM” crate shows the logical flow of the data from the detector to the 3D-Flow data processing system, through the 3D-Flow pyramid for data reduction and channel reduction. This figure has been published in several articles, starting from 2000 in Figure 16-1 on page 172 of the book that I sent on August 2002 to Surti’s colleague, Joel Karp, and he might still find the book in his laboratory.
  • The two figures below show on the left the two features of the 3D-CBS (anatomical and functional imaging) and on the right the concept of the 3D-Flow invention.
  • The figure below shows the Technological advantages of the 3D-CBS compared to the current over 6,000 PET devices in use in hospitals, which has been published in several articles as well as the figure on the bottom right of the last page of the 2505 Summary.

5.       Crosetto’s comments to Dimitris Visvikis and Suleman Surti responsible with their reviewers to accept/reject the 2505 paper

Dear Dimitri and Suleman,

I realize that we might have different views and approaches as to what constitutes the most valuable medical imaging device to greatly contribute to the defeat of the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, improve healthcare and reduce costs; however, with all my heart, on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients, I am respectfully asking you to be fair to yourselves by referring to the ethics of scientists, and to be fair to taxpayers and cancer patients by submitting yourselves to the judgement of an analytical discussion, calculations, scientific evidence and ultimately the judgement of experimental results.

 

Facts reported herein prove that it is not true that chairmen and reviewers were unaware of the advantages of my 3D-CBS invention based on the 3D-Flow system because I extensively presented my innovations in peer review articles, at conferences, distributing 200 copies of my technical-scientific book at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference, talking to the joint authors of the Explorer project which includes you, Suleman Surti, who cited my work in slide 5 of your presentation.

 

I was surprised that Dimitri Visvikis, after answering my email on July 24 informing me that my Abstract/Summary 2505 was rejected, did not provide reasons or answer any additional emails, not even my contribution sent to him and Ms. Julie Amodeo, Director of IEEE customer relations & operations, to help him correct the “MIC Topic Description” by adding the buzz words: “early”, “detection”, “prognoses”, “biological”, “anomalies”, “tumor”, “cancer”, “isotope” to the descriptions which do not appear even once in his text. I had to disturb the President of IEEE, John Verboncoeur, to provide Visvikis’ reasons for his and his reviewers’ rejection of my Abstract/Summary 2505.

 

Now that I have proved that my Abstract/Summary 2505 contains quantitative information, does has technical merits, originality and innovation and significance in providing staggering benefits, and that the scientific community and by the authors of the competing Explorer project that copied many of my ideas knew of my inventions, it is the ethical professional duty of a scientist and only fair to the public who trust scientists, for the chairmen of the 2016 IEEE-MIC conference to provide an Abstract/Summary paper they approved that addresses technical merits, innovation and significance with a complete design from detailed quantitative data of the entire project in one figure to the innovations and its benefits as the Abstract/Summary 2505 does.

 

Likewise, it is time that Suleman Surti and all co-authors of the Explorer project take the courage to face a fair competition of ideas in a public scientific procedure by addressing analytically calculations and scientific evidence where we can question each other and compare in a public review and forum my 3D-CBS and 3D-Flow inventions with the Explorer approach by analyzing the description of the projects, data processing boards, components and technology data sheets.

 

To bring respect and to be fair to taxpayers and cancer patients who pay for the advancement in research, with all my heart, in defense of science, taxpayers and cancer patients, I respectfully invite you to reflect and resign if you cannot allow the science of medical imaging to proceed freely through fair, open, public competition.

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org]

Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:01 AM

To: ‘president@whitehouse.gov’ <president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@barackobama.com’ <info@barackobama.com>; ‘democraticparty@democrats.org’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>; ‘reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘donna@brazileassociates.com’ <donna@brazileassociates.com>; ‘info@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘vice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk’ <jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk>; ‘contactholmember@parliament.uk’ <contactholmember@parliament.uk>; ‘The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov’ <The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’ <sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’ <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov’ <IGHOTLINE@hq.doe.gov>; ‘foia-central@hq.doe.gov’ <foia-central@hq.doe.gov>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov’ <Gretchen.Wood@nih.gov>; ‘lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov’ <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>; ‘Michael.Lauer@nih.gov’ <Michael.Lauer@nih.gov>; ‘shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov’ <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; ‘johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov’ <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; ‘LowyD@mail.nih.gov’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘rpettig@mail.nih.gov’ <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; ‘shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov’ <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; ‘johnv@egr.msu.edu’ <johnv@egr.msu.edu>; ‘stefan.ritt@psi.ch’ <stefan.ritt@psi.ch>; ‘presidents@ieee.org’ <presidents@ieee.org>; ‘executivedirector@ieee.org’ <executivedirector@ieee.org>; ‘k.bartleson@ieee.org’ <k.bartleson@ieee.org>; ‘hmichel@umassd.edu’ <hmichel@umassd.edu>; ‘parviz.famouri@mail.wvu.edu’ <parviz.famouri@mail.wvu.edu>; ‘s.ramesh@csun.edu’ <s.ramesh@csun.edu>; ‘eekman@cityu.edu.hk’ <eekman@cityu.edu.hk>; ‘moura@ece.cmu.edu’ <moura@ece.cmu.edu>; ‘president@ieeeusa.org’ <president@ieeeusa.org>; ‘nssmic2016@ieee.org’ <nssmic2016@ieee.org>; ‘nadia.pastrone@cern.ch’ <nadia.pastrone@cern.ch>; ‘President@rockfound.org’ <President@rockfound.org>; ‘Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com’ <Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com>; ‘Richard.Evans@citi.com’ <Richard.Evans@citi.com>; ‘Mary.McDowell@citi.com’ <Mary.McDowell@citi.com>; ‘Vikram.Pandit@citi.com’ <Vikram.Pandit@citi.com>; ‘Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com’ <Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com>; ‘James.A.Forese@citi.com’ <James.A.Forese@citi.com>; ‘Jane.Fraser@citi.com’ <Jane.Fraser@citi.com>; ‘John.C.Gerspach@citi.com’ <John.C.Gerspach@citi.com>; ‘Deepak.Sharma@citi.com’ <Deepak.Sharma@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Volk@citi.com’ <Stephen.Volk@citi.com>; ‘Paco.Ybarra@citi.com’ <Paco.Ybarra@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Bird@citi.com’ <Stephen.Bird@citi.com>; ‘Don.Callahan@citi.com’ <Don.Callahan@citi.com>; ‘peter.henry@stern.nyu.edu’ <peter.henry@stern.nyu.edu>; ‘jes138@columbia.edu’ <jes138@columbia.edu>; ‘ernesto.zedillo@yale.edu’ <ernesto.zedillo@yale.edu>; ‘citicards@info4.citi.com’ <citicards@info4.citi.com>; ‘citibusinesscreditcards@info4.citi.com’ <citibusinesscreditcards@info4.citi.com>; ‘barish@ligo.caltech.edu’ <barish@ligo.caltech.edu>; ‘ajlankfo@uci.edu’ <ajlankfo@uci.edu>; ‘joel.butler@cern.ch’ <joel.butler@cern.ch> Cc: ‘nytnews@nytimes.com’ <nytnews@nytimes.com>; ‘executive-editor@nytimes.com’ <executive-editor@nytimes.com>; ‘scitimes@nytimes.com’ <scitimes@nytimes.com>; ‘kev@cbsnews.com’ <kev@cbsnews.com>; ’60m@cbsnews.com’ <60m@cbsnews.com>; ‘info@ap.org’ <info@ap.org>; ‘stephen.engelberg@propublica.org’ <stephen.engelberg@propublica.org>; ‘nsb@nsbtalent.com’ <nsb@nsbtalent.com>; ‘patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org’ <patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org>; ‘historydetectives@opb.org’ <historydetectives@opb.org>; ‘charlierose@pbs.org’ <charlierose@pbs.org>; ‘rockcenter@nbcuni.com’ <rockcenter@nbcuni.com>; ‘b.spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <b.spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘nicola.harley@telegraph.co.uk’ <nicola.harley@telegraph.co.uk>; ‘sarah-kate.templeton@sunday-times.co.uk’ <sarah-kate.templeton@sunday-times.co.uk>; ‘Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk’ <Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk>; ‘guardian.letters@theguardian.com’ <guardian.letters@theguardian.com>; ‘observer.letters@observer.co.uk’ <observer.letters@observer.co.uk>; ‘Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘syndication@washpost.com’ <syndication@washpost.com>; ’email@e.washingtonpost.com’ <email@e.washingtonpost.com>; ‘act@credoaction.com’ <act@credoaction.com>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>; ‘unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer2@gmail.com>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <info@crosettofoundation.org>; ‘mmontgomery@cironline.org’ <mmontgomery@cironline.org>; ‘contact@icij.org’ <contact@icij.org>; ‘investigations@icij.org’ <investigations@icij.org>; ‘hello@gijn.org’ <hello@gijn.org>; ‘fundfij@gmail.com’ <fundfij@gmail.com>; ‘megan@ire.org’ <megan@ire.org>; ‘ilab@investigativecenters.org’ <ilab@investigativecenters.org>; ‘foucart@lemonde.fr’ <foucart@lemonde.fr>; ‘larousserie@lemonde.fr’ <larousserie@lemonde.fr>

Subject: In 4 years we have another election, however, cancer will still be there if scientific issues are not addressed FOR A WORLD OF REASON&SCIENCE RE: Innovations saving lives and taxpayer money are suppressed and its inventor is threatened to involve security

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *